5.56(M855) in mogadishu - Page 2

AR-15 » Ammunition

AR Sponsor:

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - 5.56(M855) in mogadishu (Page 2 of 3)

Posted: 3/15/2006 11:34:34 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So, if the transfer of energy is totally equal on both ends, how come the shooter suffers no damaging effects, yet the guy wearing armor can have anything from serious bruising, broken ribs, blunt trauma???

If you attached a 7mm diameter stub of metal to the buttstock, pushed it against your ribs and fired it might do some bruising/broken ribs too.

But I thought the vest was supposed to distribute the blow so that not all the energy and power is in the same spot. That is how armor works.

Hard versus soft armor I guess.

Through the armor the 308 had no effect whatsoever on Alexander Jason. No "blunt trauma".

Soft armor (like for pistols) would allow for the blunt trauma partially because the armor being flexible doesn't spread the impact over as large an area.

ETA: In the same video a guy from second chance shoots himself with a 44 magnum in the torso. He is wearing soft armor. Because the armor will flex and allow the projectile to do blunt damage he stuffs some magazines between the vest and himself.

Posted: 3/15/2006 11:35:29 AM EDT

[#2]

Its because of the pressure differential... Even with a vest the surface area the energy is imparted on is smaller than the surfaces area of your buttstock, thus increasing the pressure. Imagine having the stock of your file with a tiny point like a rifle bullet on your shoulder intead of the nice large flat area... that would leave the same bruise.

T

Posted: 3/15/2006 11:36:50 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So, if the transfer of energy is totally equal on both ends, how come the shooter suffers no damaging effects, yet the guy wearing armor can have anything from serious bruising, broken ribs, blunt trauma even WITH armor????

Because the transfer of energer at shooter's end happens over a longer period of time, decreasing the peak force. This is called impulse. The near-instantaneous deceleration against the target is what provides the blunt trauma.

I was thinking it was 'moment' but I guess it is 'impulse', isn't it?

Yup, the moment is the magnitude of force applied to a rotational system at a distance from the axis of rotation.

Posted: 3/15/2006 11:38:31 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Its because of the pressure differential... Even with a vest the surface area the energy is imparted on is smaller than the surfaces area of your buttstock, thus increasing the pressure. Imagine having the stock of your file with a tiny point like a rifle bullet on your shoulder intead of the nice large flat area... that would leave the same bruise.

T

You guys are on the wrong track, because the armor spreads out the force just like the stock does. It's more about the impulse (sudden change in momentum, Force vs. time).

Take it from a physicist (which is what I am when I'm not stuck in Iraq).

ETA: Now imagine using that tiny stock against your armor, not against your shoulder, to get a real picture.

Posted: 3/15/2006 11:44:58 AM EDT

[#5]

I was refering to soft body armor like a bullet proof vest, not a steel plate which would spread out the force. I wasn't aware that hard armor being hit created the same trauma that soft armor did.

T

Posted: 3/15/2006 11:47:44 AM EDT

[#6]

Here's Alexander Jason getting shot by Rich Davis of Second Chance body armor by a 308 from an FAL.

linkeroo

Posted: 3/15/2006 11:48:32 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
I was refering to soft body armor like a bullet proof vest, not a steel plate which would spread out the force. I wasn't aware that hard armor being hit created the same trauma that soft armor did.

T

Sorry, I misunderstood. You're right, soft armor would have a different effect vs. hard on the blunt trauma, most likely being much less effective in impulse absorption. Still, the true causal factor for the blunt force is the impulse, regardless of how effective the armor type is in absorbing it.

ETA: can anyone tell that I'm excited to get to actually use my degrees on arfcom?

Posted: 3/15/2006 11:57:37 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I've watched a video of ballistic forensic expert Alexander Jason get shot at point blank range by a .308 from an FN FAL while wearing a rifle rated vest and he didn't fall down.
And he got shot twice. Once while balanced on one leg. It won't knock you down. Your reaction to the bullet might, but the impact of the bullet itself won't.

I would LOVE to see that video. 150gr of lead moving 2600fps has to have a little "punch" one would think.

Wow.

I believe I've seen it. He does move a little. It's the same force that goes into your shoulder as you fire more or less.

How about the video here??

www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-976420.php

Yeah, that would be his reaction to the hit (as opposed to the kinetic energy delivered by the projectile).

If it was a Korean running right at you it would probably be different (assuming he had the armor to block the penetration and blunt trauma as was suggested in the original post saying they got knocked down).

I can't believe you guys are arguing over this. That video shows someone getting knocked down from a shot (granted its not from kinetic energy alone), but he DOES go down. So how are the Korean vets wrong saying that all the m1 would do is knock them down. We are talking about the END RESULT here, not just the kinetic energy. You guys are too quick to raise the BS flag sometimes.

Posted: 3/15/2006 11:58:21 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I've watched a video of ballistic forensic expert Alexander Jason get shot at point blank range by a .308 from an FN FAL while wearing a rifle rated vest and he didn't fall down.
And he got shot twice. Once while balanced on one leg. It won't knock you down. Your reaction to the bullet might, but the impact of the bullet itself won't.

I would LOVE to see that video. 150gr of lead moving 2600fps has to have a little "punch" one would think.

Wow.

I believe I've seen it. He does move a little. It's the same force that goes into your shoulder as you fire more or less.

How about the video here??

www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-976420.php

Yeah, that would be his reaction to the hit (as opposed to the kinetic energy delivered by the projectile).

If it was a Korean running right at you it would probably be different (assuming he had the armor to block the penetration and blunt trauma as was suggested in the original post saying they got knocked down).

I can't believe you guys are arguing over this. That video shows someone getting knocked down from a shot (granted its not from kinetic energy alone), but he DOES go down. So how are the Korean vets wrong saying that all the m1 would do is knock them down. We are talking about the END RESULT here, not just the kinetic energy. You guys are too quick to raise the BS flag sometimes.

Watch the video I posted a couple posts up.

Posted: 3/15/2006 11:58:49 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Here's Alexander Jason getting shot by Rich Davis of Second Chance body armor by a 308 from an FAL.

linkeroo

Great link, thanks.

That was not the same video I saw on the show I described earlier.

Posted: 3/15/2006 12:01:38 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Here's Alexander Jason getting shot by Rich Davis of Second Chance body armor by a 308 from an FAL.

linkeroo

Great link, thanks.

That was not the same video I saw on the show I described earlier.

The whole movie is great. I have it on VHS but I'd like to transfer it to DVD.

Posted: 3/15/2006 12:03:54 PM EDT

[#12]

Momentum is mass times velocity and impulse is the delta of momentum.
A 200lb man going 0.14ft/sec (0.095miles/hr) has the same MOMENTUM as a 62gr bullet going 3200ft/sec...

So if he runs into a wall at that speed .1mph he will feel the same impulse (change in momentum) as a 62 grain bullet hitting a plate of steel.
I don't think hitting a wall at .1mph will kill anyone.

T

Posted: 3/15/2006 12:06:45 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I've watched a video of ballistic forensic expert Alexander Jason get shot at point blank range by a .308 from an FN FAL while wearing a rifle rated vest and he didn't fall down.
And he got shot twice. Once while balanced on one leg. It won't knock you down. Your reaction to the bullet might, but the impact of the bullet itself won't.

I would LOVE to see that video. 150gr of lead moving 2600fps has to have a little "punch" one would think.

Wow.

I believe I've seen it. He does move a little. It's the same force that goes into your shoulder as you fire more or less.

How about the video here??

www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-976420.php

Yeah, that would be his reaction to the hit (as opposed to the kinetic energy delivered by the projectile).

If it was a Korean running right at you it would probably be different (assuming he had the armor to block the penetration and blunt trauma as was suggested in the original post saying they got knocked down).

I can't believe you guys are arguing over this. That video shows someone getting knocked down from a shot (granted its not from kinetic energy alone), but he DOES go down. So how are the Korean vets wrong saying that all the m1 would do is knock them down. We are talking about the END RESULT here, not just the kinetic energy. You guys are too quick to raise the BS flag sometimes.

Watch the video I posted a couple posts up.

The one of the medic getting shot?

Posted: 3/15/2006 12:09:08 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Here's Alexander Jason getting shot by Rich Davis of Second Chance body armor by a 308 from an FAL.

linkeroo

I could NEVER do that.

Posted: 3/15/2006 12:11:49 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:...

The one of the medic getting shot?

No, the one of forensic ballistics expert Alex Jason getting shot by Rich Davis of Second Chance body armor. Rich uses a 308 FN FAL and shoots Alex in the chest. Twice. Once while Alex is balanced on one leg. It doesn't knock him down at all and he barely even wobbles on his one leg.

(Directly above this post FALARAK quoted my post with the video)

Posted: 3/15/2006 12:13:27 PM EDT

[#16]

OK.......and?

Posted: 3/15/2006 12:14:59 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
OK.......and?

Well, I think that's it. The impact of the projectile doesn't knock you down.

Your reaction to it might make you jump or fall or whatever if it startled you but it won't knock you down or blow you off your feet through a plate glass window or whatever.

ETA: The point being that charging Koreans with improvised armor that could stop bullets would probably not get blown off their feet.

Posted: 3/15/2006 12:15:54 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
If someone knows the acceleration of a M885 or any bullet for that matter we could figure out its force. Mr. Newton taught us that Mass * Acceleration equals Force.

It's easier than that. Collision calculations, basic ones at least, use momentum, mass * velocity.

Posted: 3/15/2006 12:17:48 PM EDT

[#19]

How did this thread get so off topic?

FWIW just watch old newsreel footage of WWI or II, or some documentaries from Vietnam... It's tough to watch our guys get chewed up but you can see what bullets do to men. They just drop. Maybe the body part will twitch or something from the impact but that's it.

Posted: 3/15/2006 12:18:06 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
OK.......and?

Well, I think that's it. The impact of the projectile doesn't knock you down.

Your reaction to it might make you jump or fall or whatever if it startled you but it won't knock you down or blow you off your feet through a plate glass window or whatever.

ETA: The point being that charging Koreans with improvised armor that could stop bullets would probably not get blown off their feet.

OK. We know that the kinetics ALONE won't knock you down. Was that medic just tired and layed down or just happened to have a nervous disorder and would have fell down anyway without being shot?
ETA: The point being that we have PROOF (video of medic) that the Koreans with improvised armor that could stop bullets COULD (as the medic was) get "KNOCKED" down.

Posted: 3/15/2006 12:23:15 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
How did this thread get so off topic?

You have been on Arfcom HOW long?

Posted: 3/15/2006 12:24:11 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Quoted:
How did this thread get so off topic?

You have been on Arfcom HOW long?

True, I should know better.

Posted: 3/15/2006 1:28:50 PM EDT

[#23]

Great discussion! Tag.

-K

Posted: 3/15/2006 1:29:11 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Quoted:
... Enemy troops would wear make-shift body armor made out of bamboo & heavy clothing. The US vets said they would hit them, but it would only knock them down...then they'd get back up and continue. ....

Ok when I read this kind of stuff I tend to call

.30 Carbine will penetrate modern body armor, are you going to tell me bamboo & heavy clothing is BETTER at stopping bullets than Kevlar?

Even if this miracle manchurian armor managed to stop the bullet, is a .30 carbine going to knock a soldier (who is comming at you) down? Physics says it won't. Countless shooting of people who were wearing body armor says it won't (even when hit with much more powerful rounds).

Between the bullet proof bamboo and "Knock them on their A$$" from suposedly 'underpowered ammo' I'm going to have to get my hip waders out.

Ok for what it's worth. My uncle was in Korea and carried a m1 carbine. He said up close there were no problems at all. While in the mountains shots of 300 to 500 yards were common and here is where the carbine fell short. At this point the mortar was set up.

Posted: 3/15/2006 1:34:03 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Ok for what it's worth. My uncle was in Korea and carried a m1 carbine. He said up close there were no problems at all. While in the mountains shots of 300 to 500 yards were common and here is where the carbine fell short. At this point the mortar was set up.

Literally.

300 to 500 yds with a pistol round? No wonder it "fell short"

Posted: 3/15/2006 1:55:00 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Ok for what it's worth. My uncle was in Korea and carried a m1 carbine. He said up close there were no problems at all. While in the mountains shots of 300 to 500 yards were common and here is where the carbine fell short. At this point the mortar was set up.

Literally. 300 to 500 yds with a pistol round? No wonder it "fell short"

Pistol round?

Posted: 3/15/2006 2:07:23 PM EDT

[#27]

As I said before, the carbine was meant as an upgrade for troops who would normally carry a pistol. It should not be compared to a Garand, it should be compared to a pistol.

Posted: 3/15/2006 2:14:28 PM EDT

[#28]

SO IS THE AR ROUND A PISTOL ROUND ALSO?

Posted: 3/15/2006 2:16:14 PM EDT

[#29]

how is that a valid comparison? as far as I know the AR was meant to be a main battle rifle from day 1.

Posted: 3/15/2006 2:18:19 PM EDT

[#30]

read

M1 info

Posted: 3/15/2006 2:19:34 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
SO IS THE AR ROUND A PISTOL ROUND ALSO?

#1 Take the caps lock off.
#2 No, it was supposed to be between a subgun round and a main battle rifle round, just like the 7.92x33 and the 7.62x39. I would classify the .30 Carbine as a subgun-type round, similar in ballistics to a .357 mag out of a long rifle.

Posted: 3/15/2006 2:21:38 PM EDT

[#32]

I know what the m1 carbine is, but was the m1 round ever used as a pitol round?

Posted: 3/15/2006 2:22:13 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
As I said before, the carbine was meant as an upgrade for troops who would normally carry a pistol. It should not be compared to a Garand, it should be compared to a pistol.

You know this question is going to be asked for years, and expect it to double when/if that little FN carbine gets adopted.

Posted: 3/15/2006 2:23:56 PM EDT

[#34]

no, but it should be compared to pistols because that is how it was meant to be issued, read the link I supplied it will clear a lot up. nevermind I'll just cut and paste since I doubt you'll go read it.
ETA: actually I shouldn't just say no, I should say I don't think so. As far as I know it was never used in a pistol

The M1 carbine is an interesting little weapon. The original request for a compact and lightweight shoulder arm to replace service handguns for second-line (non-fighting) troops was first issued by US Army in 1938. The idea behind this request was that a shoulder arm, such as carbine, firing ammunition of moderate power, will have more effective range and will be much simpler to train the users to fire it accurately, than the standard .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol or revolver. This request was probably the first recognition of the need in the Personal Defense Weapon in the modern sense. Request was shelved for some time and re-issued in 1940. It included the new cartridge of .30 caliber but of power far less than of US general issue .30-06 ammunition. The cartridge, officially named the "cartridge, ball, .30 caliber, M1", was developed by the Winchester company. It was a straight-case, rimless design with round-nose bullet weighting 110 grains (7.1 gram) and muzzle velocity of 1860 fps (~ 570 m/s). Muzzle energy was about 2 times more than of .45ACP pistol cartridge but still almost 3 times less than of .30-06 rifle cartridge. In the modern sense the .30 carbine cartridge can be called an "intermediate" but the lack of the muzzle energy and round nosed bullet limited the effective range to about 200 meters or so.

Posted: 3/15/2006 2:24:57 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Quoted:
SO IS THE AR ROUND A PISTOL ROUND ALSO?

#1 Take the caps lock off.
#2 No, it was supposed to be between a subgun round and a main battle rifle round, just like the 7.92x33 and the 7.62x39. I would classify the .30 Carbine as a subgun-type round, similar in ballistics to a .357 mag out of a long rifle.

#1 Sorry, got in too big of a hurry to answer.

Posted: 3/15/2006 2:27:17 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
I know what the m1 carbine is, but was the m1 round ever used as a pitol round?

AMT, I believe, made a .30 cal. There are some other specialty gun makers that did as well.

There is some debate whether or not the M1 or M2 Carbine belongs in the Assault Rifle or PDW category. I tend to lean towards the PDW side of the argument.

Posted: 3/15/2006 2:28:21 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
no, but it should be compared to pistols because that is how it was meant to be issued, read the link I supplied it will clear a lot up. nevermind I'll just cut and paste since I doubt you'll go read it.
ETA: actually I shouldn't just say no, I should say I don't think so. As far as I know it was never used in a pistol

The M1 carbine is an interesting little weapon. The original request for a compact and lightweight shoulder arm to replace service handguns for second-line (non-fighting) troops was first issued by US Army in 1938. The idea behind this request was that a shoulder arm, such as carbine, firing ammunition of moderate power, will have more effective range and will be much simpler to train the users to fire it accurately, than the standard .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol or revolver. This request was probably the first recognition of the need in the Personal Defense Weapon in the modern sense. Request was shelved for some time and re-issued in 1940. It included the new cartridge of .30 caliber but of power far less than of US general issue .30-06 ammunition. The cartridge, officially named the "cartridge, ball, .30 caliber, M1", was developed by the Winchester company. It was a straight-case, rimless design with round-nose bullet weighting 110 grains (7.1 gram) and muzzle velocity of 1860 fps (~ 570 m/s). Muzzle energy was about 2 times more than of .45ACP pistol cartridge but still almost 3 times less than of .30-06 rifle cartridge. In the modern sense the .30 carbine cartridge can be called an "intermediate" but the lack of the muzzle energy and round nosed bullet limited the effective range to about 200 meters or so.

"Shoulder arm" is a rifle, not pistol. I understand they were issuing it istead of a pistol for the additional firepower.

Posted: 3/15/2006 2:32:08 PM EDT

[#38]

nobody said it WAS a pistol, but that is was meant to REPLACE pistols! No shit it's not a pistol! The point is, troops that would normally get a pistol (officers, mortarmen etc) were supposed to get the carbine. However, many troops got them, and used them as a main battle rifle, a role in which it was not suited. therefore it got a bad rep as being underpowered even though, for it's original purpose it was great.

Posted: 3/15/2006 2:32:26 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I know what the m1 carbine is, but was the m1 round ever used as a pitol round?

AMT, I believe, made a .30 cal. There are some other specialty gun makers that did as well.

There is some debate whether or not the M1 or M2 Carbine belongs in the Assault Rifle or PDW category. I tend to lean towards the PDW side of the argument.

Also the 5.56, but still a rifle round, as is the 30 cal m1 carbine round. They shoot 9mm out of rifles but that does not make it a rifle round.

Posted: 3/15/2006 2:34:34 PM EDT

[#40]

if you would read the link I put up you would see that the carbine round is not really a full powered rifle round or a pistol round, but it is closer to pistol round than to a rifle round.

They shoot 9mm out of rifles but that does not make it a rifle round.

Exactly, just because the .30 was shot out of a rifle does not make it a full powered rifle round.

Posted: 3/15/2006 2:35:40 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Ok for what it's worth. My uncle was in Korea and carried a m1 carbine. He said up close there were no problems at all. While in the mountains shots of 300 to 500 yards were common and here is where the carbine fell short. At this point the mortar was set up.

Literally.

300 to 500 yds with a pistol round? No wonder it "fell short"[/quote]

Yes, someone did>

Posted: 3/15/2006 2:39:21 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
if you would read the link I put up you would see that the carbine round is not really a full powered rifle round or a pistol round, but it is closer to pistol round than to a rifle round.

They shoot 9mm out of rifles but that does not make it a rifle round.

Exactly, just because the .30 was shot out of a rifle does not make it a full powered rifle round.

What is a "full" powered rifled round, belted magnum?

Posted: 3/15/2006 2:41:06 PM EDT

[#43]

did you read that link yet?

Posted: 3/15/2006 2:44:05 PM EDT

[#44]

Skimmed over it, nothing in there about it being a pistol round, tho.

Posted: 3/15/2006 2:46:19 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Skimmed over it, nothing in there about it being a pistol round, tho.

Compare the .30 carbine to a .357 both out of a 16" barrel.

Then compare a 5.56 or 7.62 out of a 16" barrel.

If you don't see the differences and similarities, I can't help you.

Posted: 3/15/2006 2:47:45 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
Quoted:
So, if the transfer of energy is totally equal on both ends, how come the shooter suffers no damaging effects, yet the guy wearing armor can have anything from serious bruising, broken ribs, blunt trauma???

If you attached a 7mm diameter stub of metal to the buttstock, pushed it against your ribs and fired it might do some bruising/broken ribs too.

This still wouldn't compare, you would have to put the 7mm diameter stub of metal to the buttstock and then take away the weight of the gun, then the stub of metal would come backwards at the same rate as the projectile going forward.

The only way you will transfer the same energy to the shooter would be to take the weight of the gun and recoil of the springs, etc. away from the firearm, then it would be like a grenade going off, all projectiles traveling outward in approx. the same speed.

Basically, you could accomplish the same thing by shooting yourself, but I don't think anyone would want to do that.

Posted: 3/15/2006 2:48:41 PM EDT

[#47]

no not specifically however "Muzzle energy was about 2 times more than of .45ACP pistol cartridge but still almost 3 times less than of .30-06 rifle cartridge. In the modern sense the .30 carbine cartridge can be called an "intermediate" but the lack of the muzzle energy and round nosed bullet limited the effective range to about 200 meters or so."

Now, apply common sense and realize that it is really neither, but that it is closer to a pistol round and that is how it should be compared.

Posted: 3/15/2006 2:49:40 PM EDT

[#48]

It IS NOT a pistol round, WAS NOT designed as a pistol round. Just because the m1 carbine was used instead of a pistol does not make it a pistol round.

Posted: 3/15/2006 2:52:32 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
It IS NOT a pistol round, WAS NOT designed as a pistol round. Just because the m1 carbine was used instead of a pistol does not make it a pistol round.

Its ballistics are similar to pistol rounds. So expecting to effectively engage targets at 300+ yards is assinine.

Posted: 3/15/2006 2:53:36 PM EDT

[#50]

I admit it was a VERY weak rifle round, but still a rifle round. The range on power for diferent types of weapons vary so greatly.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - 5.56(M855) in mogadishu (Page 2 of 3)

AR-15 » Ammunition

AR Sponsor:

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us